Moses and Monotheism by Sigmund Freud - HTML preview

part replaced them by others which

differ

extensively. I would reply that these

alleged advances in science are well known to me.

Yet I have riot been convinced either of their

correctness or of Robertson Smith's errors. Con-

tradiction is not

always refutation; a new theory

does not

necessarily denote progress. Above all,

however, I am not an ethnologist, but a psycho-

analyst. It was my good right to select from

ethnological data what would serve me for my

analytic work. The writings of the highly gifted

Robertson Smith

provided me with valuable

points of contact with the psychological material

of

analysis and suggestions for the use of it. I

cannot

say the same of the work of his opponents.

9. The Historical Development

I cannot

reproduce here the contents of Totem

and Taboo, but I must

try to account for the long

2O8 MOSES AND MONOTHEISM

interval that took

place between the events

which we

suggested happened in primaeval times

and the victory of monotheism in historical times.

After the combination of brother clan,

matriarchy,

exogamy and totemism had been established

there

began a development which may be

described as a slow " return of the

repressed.

55

The term " repressed

55

is here used not in its

technical sense. Here I mean

something past,

vanished and overcome in the life of a

people,

which I venture to treat as

equivalent to repressed

material in the mental life of the individual. In

what

psychological form the past existed during

its

period of darkness we cannot as yet tell. It is

not

easy to translate the concepts of individual

psychology into mass psychology, and I do not

think that much is to be

gained by introducing

the

concept of a " collective " unconscious the

content of the unconscious is collective

anyhow,

a

general possession of mankind. So in the mean-

time the use of

analogies must help us out. The

processes we study here in the life of a people are

very similar to those we know from psycho

-

pathology, but still they are not quite the same.

We must conclude that the mental residue of those

primaeval times has become a heritage which,

with each new

generation, needs only to be

awakened, not to be re-acquired. We may think

here of the

example of speech symbolism, which

certainly seems to be inborn. It originates in the

HIS PEOPLE AND MONOTHEISTIC RELIGION

2OQ

time of

speech development, and it is familiar to

all children without their

having been specially

instructed. It is the same in all

peoples in spite

of the differences in

language. What we may still

lack in

certainty we may acquire from other

results of

psycho -analytic investigations. We

learn that our children in a number of

significant

relationships do not react as their own experiences

would lead us to

expect, but instinctively, like

animals; this is explicable only by phylogenetic

inheritance.

The return of the

repressed proceeds slowly;

it

certainly does not occur spontaneously, but

under the influence of all the

changes in the

conditions of life that abound

throughout the

history of civilization. I can give here neither a

survey of the conditions on which it depends nor

any more than a scanty enumeration of the stages

in which the return

proceeds. The father became

again the head of the family, but he was no

longer omnipotent as the father of the primaeval

horde had been. In

clearly recognizable transi-

tional

stages the totem animal was ousted by the

god. The god, in human form, still carried at

first the head of an animal

; later on he was wont

to assume the

guise of the same animal. Still

later the animal became sacred to him and his

favourite

companion or else he was reputed to

have slain the animal, when he added its name

to his own. Between the totem animal and the

2IO MOSES AND MONOTHEISM

god the hero made his appearance; this was

often an

early stage of deification. The idea of a

Highest Being seems to have appeared early; at

first it was

shadowy and devoid of any connection

with the

daily interests of mankind. As the tribes

and

peoples were knit together into larger unities

the

gods also became organized into families and

hierarchies. Often one of them was elevated to

be the overlord of

gods and men. The next step,

to

worship only one God, was taken hesitatingly,

and at

long last the decision was made to

concede all

power to one God only and not to

suffer

any other gods beside him. Only then was

the

grandeur of the primaeval father restored;

the emotions

belonging to him could now be

repeated.

The first effect of the reunion with what men

had

long missed and yearned for was overwhelm-

ing and exactly as the tradition of the law -giving

on Mount Sinai

depicts it. There was admiration,

awe and

gratitude that the people had found

favour in His

eyes: the religion of Moses knows of

only these positive feelings towards the Father -

God. The conviction that His

power was

irresistible, the subjection to His will, could not

have been more absolute with the

helpless,

intimidated son of the father of the horde than

they were here; indeed, they become fully com-

prehensible only by the transformation into the

primitive and infantile milieu. Infantile feelings

HIS PEOPLE AND MONOTHEISTIC RELIGION 211

are far more intense and inexhaustibly deep than

are those of adults; only religious ecstasy can

bring back that intensity. Thus a transport of

devotion to God is the first response to the return

of the Great Father.

The direction of this Father religion was thus

fixed for all time, but its development was not

thereby finished. Ambivalency belongs to the

essence of the father -son relationship ; it had to

happen that in the course of time the hostility

should be stirred which in ancient times had

spurred the sons to slay their admired and

dreaded father. In the religion of Moses itself

there was no room for direct expression of the

murderous father-hate. Only a powerful reaction

to it could make its

appearance: the conscious-

ness of

guilt because of that hostility, the bad

conscience because one had sinned against God

and continued so to sin. This feeling of guiltiness,

which the Prophets incessantly kept alive and

which soon became an integral part of the

religious system itself, had another, superficial,

motivation which cleverly veiled the true origin

of the

feeling. The people met with hard times;

the

hopes based on the favour of God were slow in

being fulfilled; it became not easy to adhere to

the illusion, cherished above all else, that they

were God's chosen

people. If they wished to keep

happiness, then the consciousness of guilt because

they themselves were such sinners offered a

212 MOSES AND MONOTHEISM

welcome excuse for God's severity. They deserved

nothing better than to be punished by Him,

because

they did not observe the laws; the need

for

satisfying this feeling of guilt, which coming

from a much

deeper source was insatiable, made

them render their

religious precepts ever and ever

more strict, more exacting, but also more petty.

In a new

transport of moral asceticism the Jews

imposed on themselves constantly increasing

instinctual renunciation, and

thereby reached

at least in doctrine and

precepts ethical heights

that had remained inaccessible to the other

peoples of antiquity. Many Jews regard these

aspirations as the second main characteristic, and

the second

great achievement, of their religion.

Our investigation is intended to show how it is

connected with the first one, the

conception of

the one and

only God. The origin, however, of

this ethics in

feelings of guilt, due to the repressed

hostility to God, cannot be gainsaid. It bears the

characteristic of

being never concluded and never

able to be concluded with which we are familiar

in the reaction -formations of the obsessional

neurosis.

The further development transcends Judaism.

Other elements

re-emerging from the drama

enacted around the

person of the primaeval

father were in no

way to be reconciled with the

Mosaic

religion. The consciousness of guilt in

that

epoch was no longer restricted to the Jews;

HIS PEOPLE AND MONOTHEISTIC RELIGION

213

it had seized all Mediterranean

peoples as a

vague discomfort, a premonition of misfortune

the reason for which no one knew. Modern

history speaks of the ageing of antique culture.

I would surmise that it has

apprehended only

some of the casual and adjuvant causes for the

mood of dejection then prevailing among the

peoples. The lightening of that oppression

proceeded from the Jews. Although food for the

idea had been

provided by many suggestive

hints from various

quarters, it was, nevertheless,

in the mind of a

Jew, Saul of Tarsus, who as a

Roman citizen was called Paul, that the percep-

tion dawned: "it is because we killed God the

Father that we are so unhappy.'

5

It is

quite clear

to us now

why he could grasp this truth in no

other form but in the delusional guise of the

glad

tidings: " we have been delivered from all guilt

since one of us laid down his life to

expiate our

guilt.

55

In this formulation the murder of God

was, of course, not mentioned, but a crime that

had to be expiated by a sacrificial death could

only have been murder. Further, the connection

between the delusion and the historical truth was

established

by the assurance that the sacrificial

victim was the Son of God. The strength which

this new faith derived from its source in historical

truth enabled it to overcome all obstacles; in the

place of the enrapturing feeling of being the

chosen ones there came now release through

214 MOSES AND MONOTHEISM

salvation.^The fact of the father-murder, how-

ever, had on its return to the memory of mankind

to overcome

greater obstacles than the one which

constituted the essence of monotheism; it had to

undergo a more extensive distortion. The un-

mentionable crime was replaced by the tenet of

the somewhat shadowy conception of orig-

inal sin.

Original sin and salvation through sacrificial

death became the basis of the new religion

founded by Paul. The question whether there

was a leader and instigator to the murder among

the horde of brothers who rebelled against the

primaeval father, or whether that figure was

created later by

poets who identified themselves

with the hero and was then incorporated into

tradition, must remain unanswered. After the

Christian doctrine had burst the confines of

Judaism, it absorbed constituents from many

other sources, renounced many features of pure

monotheism and adopted in many particulars

the ritual of the other Mediterranean peoples.

It was as if

Egypt had come to wreak her venge-

ance on the heirs of Ikhnaton. The way in which

the new

religion came to terms with the ancient

ambivalency in the father -son relationship is

noteworthy. Its main doctrine, to be sure, was

the reconciliation with God the Father, the

expiation of the crime committed against Him ;

but the other side of the relationship manifested

HIS PEOPLE AND MONOTHEISTIC RELIGION

215

itself in the Son who had taken the

guilt on his

shoulders

becoming God himself beside the

Father and in truth in

place of the Father.

Originally a Father religion, Christianity became

a Son

religion. The fate of having to displace the

Father it could not

escape.

Only a part of the Jewish people accepted the

new doctrine. Those who refused to do so are

still called

Jews. Through this decision they are

still more

sharply separated from the rest of the

world than

they were before. They had to suffer

the

reproach from the new religious community

which besides Jews included

Egyptians, Greeks,

Syrians, Romans and lastly also Teutons that

they had murdered God. In its full form this

reproach would run: " they will not admit that

they killed God, whereas we do and are cleansed

from the

guilt of it.

55

Then it is easy to understand

what truth lies behind this

reproach. Why the

Jews were unable to participate in the progress

which this confession to the murder of God

betokened

(in spite of all its distortion) might

well be the

subject of a special investigation.

Through this they have, so to speak, shouldered

a

tragic guilt. They have been made to suffer

severely for it.

Our research has perhaps thrown some light

on the

question how the Jewish people acquired

the

qualities that characterize it. The problem

how they could survive until to-day as an entity

2l6 MOSES AND MONOTHEISM

has not

proved so easy to solve. One cannot,

however, reasonably demand or expect exhaustive

answers of such

enigmas. All that I can offer is a

simple contribution, and one which should be

appraised with due regard to the critical limita-

tions I have

already mentioned.

GLOSSARY

^Etiology causation, particularly of disease.

Affect

pertaining to the feeling bases of emotion.

Ambivalence the co-existence of opposed

feelings, par-

ticularly love and hate.

Amnesia failure of

memory.

Cathexis the

process whereby ideas and mental attitudes

are invested with a "

charge " of emotion.

Imago a German periodical devoted to the non-medical

application of psycho-analysis.

Instinctual

pertaining to instinct.

Masochism the

obtaining of sexual pleasure in conjunction

with

suffering.

Obsessional Neurosis a neurosis characterized

by the

alternation of obsessive

(compulsive) ideas and doubts.

Onanism auto-erotic

activity, the commonest example

being masturbation.

Phylo-genetic pertaining to racial development.

Reaction -formation

development of a character trait that

keeps in check and conceals another one, usually of

the

exactly opposite kind.

Regression reversion to an earlier kind of mental life.

Repetition-compulsion the tendency to repeat, which

Freud considers the most fundamental characteristic of

the mind.

Repression the keeping of unacceptable ideas from

consciousness, i.e. in the " unconscious."

Sadism the

obtaining of sexual pleasure through the

infliction of

suffering.

Super-ego the self-criticizing part of the mind out of

which the conscience

develops.

Trayma injury, bodily or mental.

217

INDEX

Aaron: 53.

Abraham: 44, 72.

Adonai: 42, 64, 65.

Adonis: 42.

JEgyptische Religion, Die: 37.

^Eschylos: 180.

^Etiology of the neuroses: 117,

118, 119.

After-life:

33.

Agade: 17.

Akhetaton (see also Ikhnaton) : 39,

40.

Akki:

17.

Alexander the Great: 115.

Allah: 149.

Alphabet, first: 69.

Amalek: 101.

Ambivalency

:

211,214.

Amenhotep III: 36, 38.

Amenhotep IV (see also Ikhnaton)

:

34, 35, 37, 38, 96-

Amon: 13, 36, 38, 39, 41, 142.

Amon-Re: 32.

Amphion: 17.

Ancestor cults: 149.

Anti-semitism: 145, 146, 147.

Aramcans: 48.

Archaic heritage: 157, 158, 161.

Astruc, Jean: 68.

Athene: 38, 74.

Atkinson: 130, 205, 206.

Aton (or Atum) : 36, 37, 42, 46,

58, 67, 96, 102, 103.

Aton religion: 39, 40, 41, 43, 50,

51, 81, 96, 97, 98, 113, 142, 178,

Auerbach: 68, 102.

Azupirani: 17.

Baalim: 1 13, 196.

Babylon: 17.

Beethoven: 172.

Bes:

32.

Birth: 18,

19.

Breasted,). H.: 13, 14, 35, 37, 38,

41, 81.

Brother clan: 206.

Buonaparte, Napoleon: 14.

Cambridge Ancient History: 35.

Canaan: 44, 48, 61, 62, 74, 78,

79, ?4, 985 99, ioi , 196.

Cannibalism: 131, 132.

Castration: 131, 147, 192.

threat of : 127.

complex: 136, 159.

Cathexis: 156.

Cerebral-anatomy: 156.

Chamisso, Adelbert von: 14.

Chosen people : 211.

Christ: 21, 94, 140, 141, 162.

Christian Communion: 135,141.

Evangelists

:

137.

Religion: 142.

Circumcision: 44, 45, 46, 48, 49,

50, 56, 64, 65, 71, 72, 98, 100,

141, 147, 192.

"

Collective " unconscious : 208.

Cologne: 146.

Compromise

: no.

Compulsiveness

:

123.

Counter-cathexis : 152, 153.

Credo quia absurdum: 186.

Crete:

74.

Cyrus: 17, 20.

Darwin, Charles: 108, 130, 205,

206.

Darwinian doctrine: 109.

David, King: 68,69.

Da Vinci, Leonardo: 172.

3*9

22O INDEX

Dawn of Conscience, The: 13, 14,

35, 37, 4'> 81.

Delusions:

137.

Deuteronomy: 68.

Development of the neuroses

: 1

29.

Disraeli, Benjamin: 14.

Distortion :

113,214.

E: 65.

Ebjatar: 68.

Ego: 109, 122, 125, 154, 155, 200.

Egyptian monotheism: 35, 107.

religion: 31, 32, 33, 34,

36,41,43,46.

Egyptian Religion, The: 50.

"Elders of Zion":

138.

Elohim: 65.

Elohist: 68, 101.

Encyclopedia Britannica, The: 68.

Erman, A.: 37, 50.

Ethiopia: 47, 53.

Euphrates: 17.

Evans, A. J.: 74, 114.

Evolution: 108.

Exile:

41, 69.

Exodus: 30, 47, 48, 52, 54, 57, 60,

65, 66, 71, 78, 98, 99,

100, 110, 176.

Book of: 12, 71, 79.

Exogamy: 132, 188, 191, 206,

208.

Exposure myth: 21, 22, 23.

Ezra: 69,

74.

Falcon: 40.

Falsification : 1 1 1 .

Family romance

: 1 8.

Father-hate: 211.

-murder: 131, 162, 206,

214.

-religion: 141.

-son-relationship

:

211,214.

substitute:

143.

Feelings of guilt: 138,143,212.

Finns:

114.

Fixation: 122,

123, 124, 125, 136.

Flaubert: 80.

Frazer, Sir James: 144.

Galton, A.: 16.

Genesis of the neuroses : 1 1 8.

German National Socialism: 90,

148.

German people: 90,114.

Gilgamesh: 17.

Godfrey: 74.

Gods of Greece, The: 162.

Goethe:

144, 172, 198, 200.

Golden Age, the:

115.

Golden

Bough, The

: 1